[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Dare,
Dare said:
Isn't suggesting that only the W3C be allowed to specify APIs or
programming language specific technologies for dealing with APIs the
very definition of creating a monopoly?
I like the fact that I can use XPP, JDOM and Castor in Java or their
equivalents in the .NET framework without having to deal with APIs that
are inconsistent with the rest of the class libraries, fail to utilize
the programming language idioms and ignore general language specific
design patterns.
Choice is the very antithesis of monopolies.
Didier replies:
I agree that choice is the antithesis of monopolies. How can you get
several vendors around the table to agree on common grounds? Maybe W3 is
a good illustration that sooner or later this becomes an impossible
task. Probably Simon is right to say that we should have stayed with XML
1.0 specs and that's it. I don't know, the only thing I can observe is
that developers are not well served with XML. If all efforts would have
been on the semantics and the infoset we would probably get more useful
specs, who knows? Maybe it's the very nature of consortia to produce
bloated specs. Maybe the wisdom for these institutions is to stop
activities at the right time. I do not know. This thread as usual leads
to more questions than answers. Individually we can select our tools but
will this lead the community to share the same tools and practices? OK
I'll get out and jog a bit there are no clear answers :-)
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
